The 2 philosophies in DAC design, hands off and hands on. Which is better?

[JackD201]

Early JRDGs were actually not hot at all. The distortion was more like a fine fuzzy texture. Good enough for HT but not music IMO. The new D-amps are nothing like the early Ts, Ices' and Hypex'. The new Bel Cantos and CIAs will give many linear amps a good run for overall value I think. I haven't heard the H2Os but I've gotten very good feedback on them from a couple of very @nal retentive friends of mine in the US.

 

[muralman1]

Early JRDGs were actually not hot at all. The distortion was more like a fine fuzzy texture. Good enough for HT but not music IMO. The new D-amps are nothing like the early Ts, Ices' and Hypex'. The new Bel Cantos and CIAs will give many linear amps a good run for overall value I think. I haven't heard the H2Os but I've gotten very good feedback on them from a couple of very @nal retentive friends of mine in the US.

This could end up in an exercise in what is different about class D. 8 years ago, that little, "Yes we can," amp set me on the course where I am now. There were plenty of interim stages with each clear sounding component addition to my system. With the same amps, and preamp I have now, these were the five major stages of sound:

1) I had an Audio Note One.1. My cables were Siltech. The sound was dynamic, with good stage, but was a bit gruff.

2) I changed the speaker cabling to Speltz Anti-Cables. The gruffness was removed. The sound now was clear, but rolled off on highs and lows. The midrange was ethereal. Overall, it was an addictive sound, and I was stuck there for awhile.

3) At a friends house, I heard the Anti-Cable compared to an early Shunyata Helix cable. The Helix showed a much better treble and bass, but the mids weren't quite as clear IMO. Noting some cable chatter from Europe, I decided to try DIY ribbon cables. I had had the Spelz cables in. I punched the PSA transport on, and, boom, I was knocked backwards. The sound became so right. The highs, and lows were there, plus a very clear midrange.

From here on out, the improvements have been a, "Pinch me, I think I'm dreaming," experience.

5) I upgraded my DAC to a 2.1. Afterwards I sent it to my brilliant amp builder friend who sent it back with the expected major improvement. I also changed my transport from the PSA, to the 47 labs Flatfish. My preamp also went in for some multi point upgrading. I improved my DIY cables. Finally, I added the Speltz digital cable. That was a lot of changes in a short time. With multiple break ins going on, I witnessed a fabulous transformation to my sound. It is like a butterfly emerging from it's chrysalis. As the wings dry, the colorful pattern emerges.

This all happened within the last 4 months. With these changes, the sound has reached it's zenith. Grand piano is full, warm, spirited, dynamic, and fully spotlighted. Singers are in the flesh. I have a first row seat in speak easies, concert halls, recording studios, stadiums, and lizard lounges. I could go on and on for a thousand words and still not got across what I am hearing. It has to be heard to be believed. Steve will make that short drive to my house. A very influential audio inventor will visit. I encourage everyone who lives in northern California to stop by. I serve great wine and lovely pizza.

There are a few more changes I would like to try. I will probably upgrade the DAC again. I may pass the ribbon cables through the speaker. I haven't mentioned power cables. On this system they do make a big difference. I will probably try some new power cables. Room treatment is a tough one. This is our home. My wife rules the roost.

In conclusion, the answer is, class D is not wanting. Our understanding of class D is wanting. I have taken this wild bull by the horns like the Minoans of old. Class D is not for the timid.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

These conversations always end up confounding me in the end. While I want to honor what others seem to hear, I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering how a speaker cable, any speaker cable, could roll of the lows and highs yet transmit the mids to the speakers with greater clarity. Are there passive filters hiding somewhere in these cables?

If I've misunderstood and you're talking about interconnects, just change the cable type. The confusion remains.

P

 

[amirm]

These conversations always end up confounding me in the end. While I want to honor what others seem to hear, I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering how a speaker cable, any speaker cable, could roll of the lows and highs yet transmit the mids to the speakers with greater clarity. Are there passive filters hiding somewhere in these cables?

Digital amps tend to be far more dependent on their output load impedance than linear (especially if negative feedback is not used). This may be the reason he is hearing such differences when he messes with the speaker cabling. The output of the class D amp needs to be filtered and that filter changes as you change the cable/speaker. Not saying this fully explains what he is saying . But that his situation is rather unique relative to most people who use either linear amps or one that is more recently designed.

 

[muralman1]

Digital amps tend to be far more dependent on their output load impedance than linear (especially if negative feedback is not used). This may be the reason he is hearing such differences when he messes with the speaker cabling. The output of the class D amp needs to be filtered and that filter changes as you change the cable/speaker. Not saying this fully explains what he is saying . But that his situation is rather unique relative to most people who use either linear amps or one that is more recently designed.

Amir, YES, you have hit the nail on the head. I am only talking about the ICE H2O. None of what I have written can apply to solid state or tube systems. This is why class D is so misunderstood.

 

[muralman1]

I was referring to both ICs and SCs. I can't remember what brand SC I was using years ago, just that they were insulated. The switch from the solid magnet wire to a short ribbon made the biggest change. I have found that the very affordable Speltz IC can do it all. I may try to better that design. I have some ideas.

 

[muralman1]

While I accept you apprciate the sound you hear, some quick measurements would surely reveal that your frequency response looks like the outline of a mountain range. The right dips and peaks can come together to mesh with your ears and ear/brain interface and offer you big preference for what you are hearing. No issues with that, but no amplification, none, that exists today, can "improve" the original signal from a fidelity standpoint....from a hearing and preference standpoint, of course. Just thought I should clear that up.

It can be argued that the fildelity to the signal concept may allow you to hear what the mikes and electronics and fiddling mixers and masters wanted you to hear, but may not sound all that correct to everyone, and thus the hunt for tone controls.


Tom

Tom, you are misunderstanding me. I don't mean to say amps and preamps can, "Improve," the music signal. What they can do, is let more of the music signal and it's expression through. That is why I stated the changes I wrote about were after the adoption of my present ICE amp and Fire preamp. The sound ranged from dreamy to flat out real. I did that by changing cables, and sources. My latest addition, the Flatfish, is revolutionary in getting out all the info packed into the CD.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, P, there are passive filters in these or any cables, it is just a matter of degree.

Siltechs ribbon cables, for example, at 10 meter length (I know thats long but needed for easier to see test results) roll off almost 3 db from 7KHz to 20Khz when driven by a less than .1 ohm output impedance solid state amp. Siltech have very high inductance values.

That same cable hooked up to a tube amp with say 1 ohm output impedance is going to not show any big change from a zip cord because the output impedance of the tube amp is so high to start with that it swamps anything the cable itself could do. In other words, within the audio band, the tube amp output impedance dominates over most any normal output cable.

In a far stretch for me, the siltechs connected to a tube amp may be perceived as sounding a bit different to the most golden of ears, with the most specific sound or tone source, on very few occasions.

However, given solid state output, it is possible for the siltech to have up to say 0.5 db upward bump between 20 and 250 hertz.


Just about any weirdo tweako cable can give you plus minus 0.5 db changes anywhere in the band if it is long enough (as above) and in some places even generating nearly 3db of change from flat response.

With three meter cables, you can expect perhaps 0.2db changes anywhere in the band and maybe up to 1db. These are generalizations based on tests done around 1991 by P Aczel.

My recomendation, start with a zip (lampcord) cable or basic monster cable, then beware as you start to drop in tweako cables, as you are just pouring on the super expensive tone controls that you have no control over. Best buy yourself a pre-amp with a bass and treble control so you can dial in your response just the way you want it.

Yes, cables do change sound, but really mostly only bad cables designed to really enhance the inductance, capacitance, reisistance, and any other energy storage mechanisims.

Also agree with Amir above.

Cheers,

Tom

Makes me happy I no longer use speaker cables.

P

 

[steve williams]

It can be argued that the fildelity to the signal concept may allow you to hear what the mikes and electronics and fiddling mixers and masters wanted you to hear, but may not sound all that correct to everyone, and thus the hunt for tone controls.

Tom

A truer word could not have been spoken. I agree 100%

 

[muralman1]

Really Steve, we want to EQ bad recordings? I just don't listen to bad recordings.

 

[naturephoto1]

Really Steve, we want to EQ bad recordings? I just don't listen to bad recordings.

Unfortunately if we like the music and that is all that is available what recourse do we have? For me I just don't listen to it as frequently or use it as a reference recording.

Rich

 

[steve williams]

Sorry Vince but for me Tom hit it right on the head with that comment. Many ways to skin a cat Vince. For me I would never use a cable to add or subtract something in my system that needs correction. I would do it a different way. Just my $0.02. Of course YMMV

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It can be argued that the fildelity to the signal concept may allow you to hear what the mikes and electronics and fiddling mixers and masters wanted you to hear, but may not sound all that correct to everyone, and thus the hunt for tone controls.

That is the argument for tone controls IMO.

Really Steve, we want to EQ bad recordings? I just don't listen to bad recordings.

You are missing a world of beautiful music for that. I can think of many performances that are indispensable, but not sonically very good recordings -- Rachmaninoff's performances, Bruno Walter's Columbia recordings of Beethoven's and Mahler's symphonies, the early recordings of Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong, the entire recorded history of Charlie Parker and Billie Holiday and most of The Beatles catalog come to mind. There are many, many more, in every genre. I have a very contemporary example. I recently discovered Madeleine Peyroux. The two recordings I have are, for the most part, very good, but some producer, hearing Billie Holiday in Peyroux's voice, put a filter on it to give it just a touch of that scratchy "vintage" sound from the old Holiday recordings. There is no way to eq it out. But there is also no way I'm going to not listen to this beautiful voice, these wonderful ensemble performances because it is not an audiophile recording.

To pass over the recorded history of the some of the most important music ever made to reach for the bland, if sonically beautiful, gruel that is most audiophile recordings strikes me as really missing the point.

P

 

[steve williams]

I agree Tim. Music is more than listening to audiophile recordings to demonstrate something in your system but rather exactly how you say. BTW I was turned on to Madeleine Peyroux a few years ago. Remarkable voice.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I agree Tim. Music is more than listening to audiophile recordings to demonstrate something in your system but rather exactly how you say. BTW I was turned on to Madeleine Peyroux a few years ago. Remarkable voice.

...and generally pretty good recordings, but the filtering on the Careless Love album is a bit of a cheap trick, IMO. I do tend to notice such things, though. One of my favorite recordings of 2009 was Shelby Lynn's "Just a Little Lovin'," but Shelby is a bit of an over-the-top analog freak who sought out old RCA tube mics to record the vocals through. They lend a lovely, creamy warmth to everything - it is a beautifully recorded album - but I get tired of hearing that mic sometimes and just want to hear Shelby whispering in my ear.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I agree Tim. Music is more than listening to audiophile recordings to demonstrate something in your system but rather exactly how you say. BTW I was turned on to Madeleine Peyroux a few years ago. Remarkable voice.

...and generally pretty good recordings, but the filtering on the Careless Love album is a bit of a cheap trick, IMO. I do tend to notice such things, though. One of my favorite recordings of 2009 was Shelby Lynn's "Just a Little Lovin'," but Shelby is a bit of an over-the-top analog freak who sought out old RCA tube mics to record the vocals through. They lend a lovely, creamy warmth to everything - it is a beautifully recorded album - but I get tired of hearing that mic sometimes and just want to hear Shelby whispering in my ear.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sorry sorry for the double double post post.

P

 

[muralman1]

Sorry Vince but for me Tom hit it right on the head with that comment. Many ways to skin a cat Vince. For me I would never use a cable to add or subtract something in my system that needs correction. I would do it a different way. Just my $0.02. Of course YMMV

Steve, I don't know where you are going with this. Those short ribbon cables (I have monos turned around backwards) CAN'T just add or subtract information. Now, I can see where an MIT cable might do that. What my cables do, is everything right. On my ICE system the difference between thin ribbon and solid wire is simply amazing. The difference between those too and, say, Cardas Golden Reference cables is the latter showers the signal with trapped energy in it's thick insulation.

If you don't believe me, bring some insulated cables here, and I will demonstrate.

 

[FrantzM]

Steve, I don't know where you are going with this. Those short ribbon cables (I have monos turned around backwards) CAN'T just add or subtract information. Now, I can see where an MIT cable might do that. What my cables do, is everything right. On my ICE system the difference between thin ribbon and solid wire is simply amazing. The difference between those too and, say, Cardas Golden Reference cables is the latter showers the signal with trapped energy in it's thick insulation.

If you don't believe me, bring some insulated cables here, and I will demonstrate.

Muralman1

The word "CAN"T" is strong. So far I have made the effort to accept what you say about your incredible cables ... I have a hard time understanding notions such as "trapped" energy, this is to me pushing the antropomorphism a little far.. Big insulation would "trap" energy whereas thin ones would not ...

But hey!! you enjoy your system. I will (try to) bow out but my skepticism is growing

 

[naturephoto1]

Can't let you off that easy!

I know, but just for fun, what do you consider those dangly things that run from your headphone cups down to the amp! There is a whole business category these days for "upgrading" those. Some of the same considerations apply, although mircoscopically, at normal headphone power levels.

Tom

Tom,

As I recall Tim is using active speakers with built in amps.

Rich